Of course, I’m not sure if the figures stack up to my view of it, but it certainly looks neat, doesn’t it?

There is a theory that people like a balance. That is, they like different parties to be in power at the state and federal level. I have always doubted, without any evidence, that this is so. I suspect that the answer is much more related to the individual psychology of voters. I think the vast majority of voters are not interested in the ideology at all. They wouldn’t even think of themselves as voting “left” at one level and “right” at another.

(I’ll leave aside the question of how “left” the votes of someone who has been voting for Bob Carr, for example, are.)

Incumbency seems to be a pretty big advantage in Australia most of the time. The Australian voter is a cautious beast. I’m not sure what psychological factors are at work, but I believe it is a real influence on elections.

I have one friend, that I know for a fact, has voted for the incumbent at every single election, state and federal, since he has been able to vote. (1st election 1990). I have another friend who nearly always supports the opposition. To someone who knows them well, this is not all that surprising. It is a comfortable fit with their general approach to life.

Answering FDB’s question, I believe it is almost impossible for an opposition to appeal to some people. Australian voters are risk averse. Governments really have to make a hash of it for them even to consider voting for change.

Andrew Leigh has some cautions about polls in general though:

[link]

On a scale of one to ten, where ten is the highest and one the lowest, describe how much Fabbo laundry powder appeals to your sense of being clean.

It’s also worth reiterating that *not everyone* has to have the view that things are like this - we just need 4% more of voters to shift then Howard’s gone.

local: Green
state: Labour
federal: Liberal

i.e. “I want MY environment looked after, and want to feel like MY council is looking at the big picture environmentally (local). I want MY kids to have good state schools. I want MY parents to be cared for in old age (state). I want MY country to compete economically (federal)”

How is an opposition supposed to appeal to a voter like that?

voters pick a “virtuous� answer as opposed to wanting to seem as if they place their personal advantage over social benefit.

Mark, I’d be interested to know why you think this is wrong. It seems to me to be a perfectly sensible statement about telephone interviewing, for the same reason lots of people describe themselves in the Census as being religious though they don’t observe religious custom or ever attend worship.

Keating thought he could ride it out and the liberals has no one of substance to lead them.

Even when Howard became leader again he didn’t think people would vote for him given howard’s record and the good economic times.

Fool

you are missing the point.
Howard is attempting to:

a) change the subject

b) create mischief and mayhem in the ALP over the issue

Mark,

Smoking Joe resigned not long after having delivered that budget. He had no options given Keating’s extravagance.
Repealing the tax cuts was impossible, so was a drastic cutting of expenditure which left the lift in sales tax.

Keating would have known this.

Why the disconnect between the commentariat and the polls.

The commentariat always take a while to catch up with the prevailing mood in the community - this isn’t a new phenomenon.

It is possible that the people have in fact turned on Howard, but that wouldn’t fit with the Howard-as-everyman/political-genius storyline.

On the other hand, there’s always another scare campaign in the bottom drawer come election time.